Apple Watch Is Water-Resistant Like Nike+ FuelBand, But Not Waterproof

After the simultaneous launch of the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus yesterday, we had a sneaking suspicion that Apple’s eagerly-awaited wearable would be next, and after years of on-off rumors, the Apple Watch trio was finally revealed. As expected, the Apple Watch is abundant with sensors and, by all accounts, is ready to take on the elements as wearers seek to attain optimal fitness and general health. But while it is water-resistant and will be able to deal with sweat or a spot of rain, it’s not waterproof, and as such, should not be taken into the bath or the shower.

In many respects, Apple Watch is like Nike’s FuelBand, which was also described as water-resistant, but the key thing to remember is that water-resistant and waterproof are two largely differing concepts. Water resistant only means that a device will continue to function after encountering liquid or condensation at a minor level. Waterproof products, conversely, can be submerged into water at varying depths without causing any lasting damage.

The fact that Apple Watch is able to cope with some water is a relief, though, particularly given the emphasis on fitness and the deep integration with iOS Health. The lion’s share of the Apple Watch demonstration seemed to focus on physical activity, and given that blood, sweat and tears are often the by-product of a rigorous fitness regime, the new wearable does need some kind of minimum tolerance threshold.

Even though it has been something of a relief to finally see Apple Watch unveiled, we’re essentially back on the trail again due to the fact that the wrist-worn devices won’t launch until “early 2015.” In the run-up to yesterday’s fanfare, analysts touted a January roll-out, but given Apple’s reluctance to pin down a month, it could be four, five, even six months until Apple Watch hits the consumer market.

Still, the mere fact that it’s official will prevent Apple-fanning smartwatch buyers from picking up an alternative device like the Moto 360 from Motorola or the famed Pebble, and with Google’s Android Wear set to spawn a host of new wearables from HTC, ASUS and others, we’re looking forward to a fierce battle looking ahead to 2015.

So I want to know exactly what they said to him. Most watch manufactures have abandoned putting Waterproof on their watches. Instead they will put water resistant and a depth or ATM. I’d like to see what Apple specs the watch at. The Pebble is rated to 5ATM (translates to about 50m). The Gear is only IP67, which is splashproof IMHO. Technically, IP67 *should* get you 1m for 30min, but I don’t know how much I trust that.

The deal breaker for me is what they rate it at. If it’s not suitable for recreational swimming or showering, I’ll wait for one that is. I’m not going to risk buying a $350 watch that can’t handle taking a shower.

efdrums

How could that be the deciding factor between iwatch or another. If you have an iPhone it’s the only choice you got… Most people aren’t going to jump ship only due to a watch. Not now any way watches are not a proven concept yet.

Alu Zeros

Still think it was stupid that Nike killed off the fuel band

mozbius

Totally agree! At $350 the cost of the watch it definately needs to be waterproof especially considering that it is partly aimed at sport afficionados!

IrrelevantD

If that was @ me, it’s not the deciding factor between the apple watch and another brand, it’s the deciding factor between buying the watch and just staying with my Garmin Vivofit. I’ve gone this long without a smart watch, I think I can survive a bit longer until one comes out thou suits my needs/wants.

That being said, I won’t be buying an iPhone 6 either. If I want something bigger than my iPhone 5, I’ll pull out my iPad. And if I want something bigger than that, I’ll pull out my macbook.

Truly, I want my phone back to the size of my iPhone 4, and I’m fine with my ipad being a mini. I really don’t understand this trend toward bigger devices.

kitredna

Some people doesn’t have the luxury of owning multiple devices or doesn’t want to carry more than one gadget at a time, so they would want a device that can serve most of their needs with these compromises.

IrrelevantD

My point is that they should have a either a wider variety of options or move toward both ends of the spectrum. Making the only two options offered larger is a bad move IMHO and alienates users who do not want or need a larger device.